Hi Aras I think you mistook the main thrust of my post. The use of the poll results was to try and counteract the often repeated mantra here that it is just a few ferals that were opposed to Metgasco. Gas mining in the Northern Rivers is going to encounter unprecedented and relentless opposition. Any investor who chooses to only hear the half of the story that they want to hear is more fool than investor.
Nowhere did I say that the rules have to be changed to suit the will of the majority. I am all too aware we only live in a democracy once every 4 years. I was just giving a salient warning that there is no chance of this project proceeding in a smooth, unhindered fashion. This was allegedly only the first well of many hundreds, every one of them likely to have faced fierce resistance.
Lilac I do not profess to be either a chemist or geologist but... From the Metgasco's Review of Environmental Factors (REF) in Appendix 2 they list the chemicals that will be stored on site. 15 chemicals will definitely be used and another 20 may be used if needed. A quick calculation showed over 6 Tonnes of the definite chemicals. Of the 15 definite chemicals 8 were listed as "Hazardous".
Mind you these are only the chemicals to be used in the drilling of the hole, it does not include the cocktail of chemicals that would be used in the fracking later on.
Bottom line is people up that way get pretty defensive about their water and will fight vigorously to protect it. Despite everyones best intentions there can be no ironclad guarantee of safety ... apart from no wells = no risks.
